Does anyone know how we (LFX Camaro owners) might be able to convince GM they need to address the "dead spot" issue in our cars? I mean, that just isn't right. And seeing how the new TBs being touted here seem to fix the problem, GM should hold some responsibility for selling cars with faulty throttle bodies.

Any suggestions on how to get the ball rolling on something like this?

GM had the best design TB in the LS2, and then dropped it for the LS3/L99 version with deeper dips and peaks and made no sense.

The LS2 VMax CNC ported makes more gains then the LS3/L99 but they are not compatable to swap.

I think many confuse the "best design" with the marketing demographics, the budget and cost caps, and what most owners will never complain about or even realize that really dictate how well anything is designed.

Always has been this way, and probably always will. Look at the oil ingestion issues.....since 1997 when GM released the first LS motor there have been issues and very little done as far as changes to really deal with it.

99% have no idea what it does over time in their engine so why engineer it better when a fraction complain?

GM had the best design TB in the LS2, and then dropped it for the LS3/L99 version with deeper dips and peaks and made no sense.

The LS2 VMax CNC ported makes more gains then the LS3/L99 but they are not compatable to swap.

I think many confuse the "best design" with the marketing demographics, the budget and cost caps, and what most owners will never complain about or even realize that really dictate how well anything is designed.

Always has been this way, and probably always will. Look at the oil ingestion issues.....since 1997 when GM released the first LS motor there have been issues and very little done as far as changes to really deal with it.

99% have no idea what it does over time in their engine so why engineer it better when a fraction complain?

At least the fix is inexpensive for those not happy w/it.

I understand, but when you build a car that's made for cruisin' and jumping on the gas at lights, etc., it seems a dead spot in your lower power range is a rather bad advertisement. People have noticed (as is evident on this forum) and frankly, word of mouth about this and other problems experienced with the LFX is going to cost them (GM). If it's a know problem - they should fix it.

I've read all about the dreaded dead spot, but I've honestly never had any issue with mine. Maybe once I get a cold air intake I'll feel a difference, but for now my Camaro is the only one I've ever driven so I have never known anything different.

It's pretty apparent with a manual. Try to pass someone in a high gear on the superslab and there's nothing there. Looking to wake up some low end that I know is there in this engine. My ported TB will be here on 8/8/12, so I will post back to let everyone know if it helps and where to get one.

It's pretty apparent with a manual. Try to pass someone in a high gear on the superslab and there's nothing there. Looking to wake up some low end that I know is there in this engine. My ported TB will be here on 8/8/12, so I will post back to let everyone know if it helps and where to get one.

John B.

I just removed my CAI and tune, and I forgot how bad that issue was. Highway went from 75 to 55 then back to 75. When I tried to get back up to 75, no juice in 6th anymore, felt like it was lugging and downshifted to 5th. This is my morning and afternoon commute for work and I usually just cruise along in 6th the whole way on the highway. Forgot how much CAI and tune really wake the low end up.

__________________

2013 Scion FR-S - current DD, after life circumstances made me get out of a Camaro2014 Camaro 1LT, Red Rock Metallic, wife's car once we could get a Camaro again

I just removed my CAI and tune, and I forgot how bad that issue was. Highway went from 75 to 55 then back to 75. When I tried to get back up to 75, no juice in 6th anymore, felt like it was lugging and downshifted to 5th. This is my morning and afternoon commute for work and I usually just cruise along in 6th the whole way on the highway. Forgot how much CAI and tune really wake the low end up.

Yeah - I could see it being much more of an issue with the M6 than with the A6, but still... it is a known problem with the V6s and GM should own up to it.

I still havent found this "dead" spot. The dyno doesn't show a dead spot. Can anyone describe this dead spot and at what rpm it occurs? I floor my car it goes faster and faster linear until 4k then it shoots up sharply...

I understand, but when you build a car that's made for cruisin' and jumping on the gas at lights, etc., it seems a dead spot in your lower power range is a rather bad advertisement. People have noticed (as is evident on this forum) and frankly, word of mouth about this and other problems experienced with the LFX is going to cost them (GM). If it's a know problem - they should fix it.

Fortunately... you guys are here to kiss it and make it better.

Your logic is seriously flawed. The vast majority of people don't notice and those that do, and aren't searching for a cause/remedy online, will go to the dealer. The dealer will search for a TSB and there will be none. Customer will be told everything works within "specs" and that'll be the end.

If there isn't a mass influx, as in thousands, of vehicles heading back into the stealership for the same issue, with the same explanation and the dealer actually acknowledging the issue and submitting it to GM...it won't even be looked at. In fact, it is more costly to try to rectify these problems with, say a new TB, post-production from GM than it would be to let it skirt under the rug. This is why most recalls and TSB deal with safety issues more so than anything else. A dead spot in the lower RPM range will get a *shrug*.

In the end, it won't cost GM a thing. Camaro5 is in no way, shape, form or fashion representative of total 5th Gen LFX Camaro ownership.

You're correct. My logic is based on the desire to provide outstanding customer service, which is sorely lacking in most businesses today. If someone is experiencing the dead spot they should be able to bring it to the dealership, show them that it is occurring, and have the throttle body replaced at no charge. Very simple - customer satisfaction.

I know it won't happen and I understand why... for the reasons you mentioned.

People on the forums seem to be far more "connected" to their car and they notice things 99% dont. Just lke the gunk buildup on the valves. It occurs gradually so 99% dont notice the drop in performance and fuel economy. If the dealer tells them "everything is fine" they put it out of mind.

Most people buy a vehicle to get from point a-point b and only service it when the DIC tells them to. Never even open the hood to check oil, etc.

On these forums, we are the 1%ers.....(not all, as you can see the debates all the time "if it needed it, GM would have done it" etc.) we want the best and expect the best.

You're correct. My logic is based on the desire to provide outstanding customer service, which is sorely lacking in most businesses today. If someone is experiencing the dead spot they should be able to bring it to the dealership, show them that it is occurring, and have the throttle body replaced at no charge. Very simple - customer satisfaction.

I know it won't happen and I understand why... for the reasons you mentioned.

There's a line between "outstanding customer service" and throwing parts at a problem. The TB isn't the problem. It's the design of the TB. If a customer comes in and experiences the dead spot and the dealer replaces the TB, guess what? The problem is still there. Then what? Replace the TB another 10 times, the problem is still there. This would not equate to any type of customer satisfaction. The customer would be furious that they wasted their time. If the fundamental problem with Part A is the design of Part A, replacing it with another Part A will not fix the problem.

The dealership is just that, the dealership. They aren't engineers and they can't make the types of calls that would warrant a completely redesigned TB. The dealership is but a small pawn when it comes to this problem. Hence, the reason why I said the problem would need to be escalated beyond that of a dealership, in my initial post.

When 95% of vehicles go without complaints, those other 5% don't warrant recalls, TSBs and new parts. They're just seen as the odd ones out the bunch.

There's a line between "outstanding customer service" and throwing parts at a problem. The TB isn't the problem. It's the design of the TB. If a customer comes in and experiences the dead spot and the dealer replaces the TB, guess what? The problem is still there. Then what? Replace the TB another 10 times, the problem is still there. This would not equate to any type of customer satisfaction. The customer would be furious that they wasted their time. If the fundamental problem with Part A is the design of Part A, replacing it with another Part A will not fix the problem.

The dealership is just that, the dealership. They aren't engineers and they can't make the types of calls that would warrant a completely redesigned TB. The dealership is but a small pawn when it comes to this problem. Hence, the reason why I said the problem would need to be escalated beyond that of a dealership, in my initial post.

When 95% of vehicles go without complaints, those other 5% don't warrant recalls, TSBs and new parts. They're just seen as the odd ones out the bunch.

Who's talking about dealerships installing bad part after bad part? I spent 20 years in the spare and repair parts business for the Marine Corps, so I know a little bit about addressing these type issues. I'm talking about GM stepping up and admitting a potential problem that they will fix. In my original post I said:

"Does anyone know how we (LFX Camaro owners) might be able to convince GM they need to address the "dead spot" issue in our cars? I mean, that just isn't right. And seeing how the new TBs being touted here seem to fix the problem, GM should hold some responsibility for selling cars with faulty throttle bodies."

Okay - so the stock throttle bodies perform as designed. The design is flawed, therefore, the throttle body is faulty for its intended purpose. The Rx or vMax (or whomever) design obviously eliminates the dead spot. THAT is what GM should be replacing the stock ones with if CUSTOMERS report (and validate) problems.

Believe it or not, the vararam helps a lot. More than you'd believe. That along with the ported intake manifold and 25mm insulator killed my dead spot... You should wait and see if Vararam releases their intake... It'll help A LOT!

... If someone is experiencing the dead spot they should be able to bring it to the dealership, show them that it is occurring, and have the throttle body replaced at no charge.

I didn't take what you said out of context, you said it. If you also meant the dealer should have GM re-engineer a part, spend money on R&D, then replace the part...you should've stated such. There is a difference between "dealership" and "manufacturer", you used the two interchangeably. I took what you said in a response to me verbatim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

Okay - so the stock throttle bodies perform as designed. The design is flawed, therefore, the throttle body is faulty for its intended purpose. The Rx or vMax (or whomever) design obviously eliminates the dead spot. THAT is what GM should be replacing the stock ones with if CUSTOMERS report (and validate) problems.

To GM the TB is not faulty or flawed. To us, it is. However, to them it is be working 'within specifications". I hate to be nit-picky, but that is how it is. It's cheaper for GM to address this problem on an individual case-by-case basis than to issue out a mass recall and start churning new TBs. And because a few of us notice this problem, it will not be addressed, nor will GM engineer new throttle bodies for this purpose. You're talking about re-investing R&D on a vehicle that is already on the road, when R&D is working on the new model, to solve an issue few will ever notice. If you believe GM will spring forth and acknowledge the problem in any significant way that fixes it, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

What a company "should" be doing and what is fiscally responsible to their share holders isn't an accurate comparison. I don't think GM should even look into this issue. Heck, we have users here who don't even notice the issue. There seems to be no consensus on whether the issue is actually an issue. I bought Tracey's TB and I got it not only for the "dead spot" elimination but the performance gains.

I only say this because I used to do R&D on Hyundai vehicles before I went back to school. In most reports, there are notes that state where "lag" or "slow" response is and most times instead of being addressed, it is deemed to be normal and within spec.

I understand your point and it's well received, but I also understand the other side of the argument. Sometimes manufacturers cut corners in hopes that the aftermarket vendors will address some of them. This isn't a new tactic. No vehicle is without fault and this one is no exception. If this issue makes you that irate, I would channel it and put pen to paper in a letter to Chevrolet Customer Assistance.

Not sure I believe in this dead spot stuff. The LFX is a fairly small v-6 that makes most of its power on the top end. So under 2500 rpm is the dead spot? Really? I think its really a torquey little motor for its size. Lower gearing would help, that is true, but dead spot? Mine rips from the second I floor it. Not SS bottom end but dyno graphs dont support a "dead spot". Flooring it in top gear at 70 does not excite for sure. Thats exactly why I bought a manual. 2 down shifts, 3 if you really want to make it exciting, and away we go! The manual is really the way to use the V-6 IMO. I love my LFX.

Not sure I believe in this dead spot stuff. The LFX is a fairly small v-6 that makes most of its power on the top end. So under 2500 rpm is the dead spot? Really? I think its really a torquey little motor for its size. Lower gearing would help, that is true, but dead spot? Mine rips from the second I floor it. Not SS bottom end but dyno graphs dont support a "dead spot". Flooring it in top gear at 70 does not excite for sure. Thats exactly why I bought a manual. 2 down shifts, 3 if you really want to make it exciting, and away we go! The manual is really the way to use the V-6 IMO. I love my LFX.

I think some of the feeling might be due to the TB, but a lot of it is probably due to lack of TQ. FWIW, flooring it in the SS in 6th gear at 70 does not excite either.

Even if there was a problem, I wouldn't count on GM fixing it. It seems they won't admit to any problems. Look at how the SS guys are still doing fuse pulls all the time to get "unstuck" from the low octane table.

Well I'm sorry that you thought I was wanting the dealer to keep installing bad part after bad part - I thought my implication they should replace the stock TB with one that performs like the ones VMax is producing, was obvious. Apparently not. I'm through with this conversation.